Serena may be regarded as the greatest tennis player ever on the merits of her GS play, but overall career results? She is primarily just a GS player. the other stats just don't support it and pale in comparison to some of the others here.

Needs more total titles, more slam wins, more stay at #1. She's great no doubt, but a lot of hype for her being the best ever, yet can't pull a consecutive dominance at the top a la some of the greats. Frankly, given the pathetic state of the WTA if she only wins 1 or 2 slams next year (assuming no injury occurs), I'd question her "highest level of play" credibility big time.

Frankly, given the pathetic state of the WTA if she only wins 1 or 2 slams next year (assuming no injury occurs), I'd question her "highest level of play" credibility big time.

LOL you make it sound like Serena is at her career peak. Newsflash- Serena is 31 years old, the same as Federer who you ****s have been calling a grandpa for 5 years now. Last season she had the best season EVER by a 30/31 year old women, better than Navratilova's 1987 or Evert's 1986 which was probably the previous best. In the event she wins 1 or 2 majors next year she will have the best season ever by a 31/32 year old women as well. The Serena of 2002 who won 5 of 6 slams vs the deepest womens field ever, would win 20 slams in a row vs the current field, but naturally given age and years of injuries that is not the Serena who plays now, however it is a testement to her greatness that she has remained so great and dominant as she is at this age. No women in the Open Era has ever won more than 3 slams in her 30s and 1 past age 30. Serena is likely to oliterate both those records. Steffi Graf for instance retired from tennis barely after her 30th birthday, after a generally mediocre final 3 years where she managed only 1 major. To expect a women in her 30s to win 3 or 4 majors a year is absurd. As for competition womens tennis always has bad competition. The only periods it didnt were 1999-2003 (the deepest womens field ever, where Serena was top dog) 1971-1975, and 1989-1992.

NadalAgassi she needs more majors for sure like you said she is no spring chicken. She has to win some in bunches and fast before father time catches up with her and Graf begins to look tougher to catch. It's as good as a time as ever to pull that off with the current field

To get a uniform nod from the critics she's gonna have to have the most slams. I do think most agree that when she brings her A game she'll beat anyone on that list. However, her volleys are suspect. I can't give the GOAT nod to someone that can't volley efficiently but I admit she'll beat most everyone. Henin did best her at the US Open when they were both playing well but I'm sure Serena would win most of the time all things being equal. Too much power! Amazing serve too.

I really can't tell if she likes tennis that much. Some years she seemed to enjoy doing her clothing line more. Her Dad may have chosen tennis for her...kinda like an Agassi thing.

Cannot really understand this typical american attitude where everything there should be the biggest and greatest.
I can understand fans, but facts are facts and the story is made just of facts.

She's a great player, raising always to the top of ther ranks whenever she comes back to play (and this is a problem in my opinion, of course not for her, but for the level of game proposed by ladies)
When i see azarenka and sharapova are n. 1 and 2, i'm horrified, Serena at 50% of her potential trash them with any problem, but to define her the best ever it's clearly an overstatement.
15 slams are not little...... but there are players who won more than her, with better career percentages.

In 20 or 30 year I guess there will be new trolls saying that and XYZ player of 2040 is the greatest and would trash serena with level of game at their pick.
It's called evolution.

Cannot really understand this typical american attitude where everything there should be the biggest and greatest.
I can understand fans, but facts are facts and the story is made just of facts.

She's a great player, raising always to the top of ther ranks whenever she comes back to play (and this is a problem in my opinion, of course not for her, but for the level of game proposed by ladies)
When i see azarenka and sharapova are n. 1 and 2, i'm horrified, Serena at 50% of her potential trash them with any problem, but to define her the best ever it's clearly an overstatement.
15 slams are not little...... but there are players who won more than her, with better career percentages.

In 20 or 30 year I guess there will be new trolls saying that and XYZ player of 2040 is the greatest and would trash serena with level of game at their pick.
It's called evolution.

This evolution stuff that some posters write about makes no sense to me. Evolution doesn't happen that quickly. I read some posters already writing that Sampras wouldn't be a factor today because of the great progress of the sport aka evolution. I'll believe in the evolution of tennis when we find a player with wings and three feet. Overheads will be easy for this player because he or she can fly and he or she will be faster because this human has three feet. Otherwise I think Bill Tilden (6'2" tall and very slim with excellent speed) from the pre 1920's would be able to adapt and play today.

Court has won at least 200 tournaments and there were no Mickey Mouse events therein. And there were no splitted fields as there were at the men.

You can't neglect tennis before open era!!!

I've only seemed to mention this to him a few billion times and he never seems to acknowledge it. Therefore we must conclude that TMF is correct. Tennis and the universe didn't exist prior to 1968.

Incidentally even after 1968 we can put Court up there with anyone considering she won the Grand Slam in 1970.

Here's Court's won-lost from 1968 on. Awful isn't it. Only 96 tournaments won plus 11 majors in that time and a Grand Slam. I would say her record even from just 1968 on is better than many greats entire careers like Hingis, Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Venus Williams, Mandlikova, Goolagong etc. The first group of numbers are her won-lost record and the second is the amount of tournaments won.

^
But if Court 200 titles and 24 slams hold the standard for the players after her era, shouldn't she be head and shoulder above Martina and Graf? There's a reason why she's considered below them and you guys just don't want to admit it. You think her 200 titles is 4 times greater than Serena's 46 titles. Unbelievable!

You misinterpret the reason Court is lowballed. The reason Court is diminished is not the general field per say. It is that back then the Australian Open was a joke slam, especialy for women, played generally only by Australian women. She won 11 of her 24 slams there, and no more than 5 at any of the other 3. Had she won only 5 of her slams at the Australian Open, or had everyone played the Australian Open like the other 3 slams, most would probably consider her and her 24 majors the greatest ever. However the Australian Open, atleast for women, was just not a real slam then.

This evolution stuff that some posters write about makes no sense to me. Evolution doesn't happen that quickly. I read some posters already writing that Sampras wouldn't be a factor today because of the great progress of the sport aka evolution. I'll believe in the evolution of tennis when we find a player with wings and three feet. Overheads will be easy for this player because he or she can fly and he or she will be faster because this human has three feet. Otherwise I think Bill Tilden (6'2" tall and very slim with excellent speed) from the pre 1920's would be able to adapt and play today.

Evolution happens everytime somebody set new standards, you cannot deny that lot of factors changed the game from the beginning, all Nr. 1 have been Nr. 1 with the standards of their own time, therefore to me is stupid to compare different era's, anyhow they were super-athletes and they would have adapted very well to the game of the new eras, i don't doubt that.

Evolution happens everytime somebody set new standards, you cannot deny that lot of factors changed the game from the beginning, all Nr. 1 have been Nr. 1 with the standards of their own time, therefore to me is stupid to compare different era's, anyhow they were super-athletes and they would have adapted very well to the game of the new eras, i don't doubt that.

And that is all I'm saying. Some are writing (I believe) that the players physically have become far superior due to the I guess the incredible speed of evolution.

^
But if Court 200 titles and 24 slams hold the standard for the players after her era, shouldn't she be head and shoulder above Martina and Graf? There's a reason why she's considered below them and you guys just don't want to admit it. You think her 200 titles is 4 times greater than Serena's 46 titles. Unbelievable!

I never wrote Court is head and shoulders over Navratilova and Graf. Please read what I write carefully. I think she gets a bad rap in some ways perhaps because of her views. Give me a break, she won the Grand Slam in 1970 against everyone. I think Court's record is clearly superior to Serena's.

You do realize that most people don't know Court won 200 tournaments in her career and know her great record. You seem to throw numbers out when it's convenient for you but don't acknowledge other numbers like Court's 200 tournament wins or her Grand Slam.

And that is all I'm saying. Some are writing (I believe) that the players physically have become far superior due to the I guess the incredible speed of evolution.

I think we agree in our views, I agree also with the fact that the actual players are stronger compare to the old ones due to more professional training, new tecnologies in material, food, ecc ecc ecc. the actual athletes are push to limits just unknown before.
I really believe that a champ would be a champ in any era, because they are able to maximize their talents whatever talents are.

I think we agree in our views, I agree also with the fact that the actual players are stronger compare to the old ones due to more professional training, new tecnologies in material, food, ecc ecc ecc. the actual athletes are push to limits just unknown before.
I really believe that a champ would be a champ in any era, because they are able to maximize their talents whatever talents are.

That's essentially my view with some minor exceptions. I think for example Lew Hoad would be exceptional strong in any era but he do a lot of weight training in the 1950's. You would read stories about what Hoad was able to do because of his great strength on and off the court.

She'll never be the greatest ever, her brand of tennis isn't particularly exciting to respected tennis analysts and former players, and don't forget all the you know achievements and stuff she's far behind many of the GOATs on.